Central government's communication and engagement with local government - Department for Communities and Local Government
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 187 SESSION 2012-13 13 JUNE 2012 Department for Communities and Local Government Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. We apply the unique perspective of public audit to help Parliament and government drive lasting improvement in public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Amyas Morse, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 860 staff. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of more than £1 billion in 2011.
Department for Communities and Local Government Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 12 June 2012 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act. Amyas Morse Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 11 June 2012 HC 187 London: The Stationery Office £16.00
At its best, good communication supports engagement and collaborative working, leading to better outcomes. With pressure to reduce spending, it is more important than ever that central government engages effectively with local government to draw on its expertise and capability in designing and delivering good quality, efficient public services. © National Audit Office 2012 The text of this document may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as National Audit Office copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Links to external websites were valid at the time of publication of this report. The National Audit Office is not responsible for the future validity of the links. Printed in the UK for the Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2496597 06/12 PRCS
Contents
Foreword 4
Key facts 5
Summary 6
Part One
Developing the conditions for central and
local government to work together 11
Part Two
Sharing knowledge to develop effective
policies and services 18
Part Three The National Audit Office study team
Communications that support efficient consisted of:
and effective business 27 Mark Allen, Sam Burford, Andrew Epps,
Angela Hands, Janine Hawkins,
Appendix One Lydia Lobo, Jonathan Mackay,
Methodology 34 Mark Parrett, Kirsten Payne,
Appendix Two Thea Tanner, Andy Whittingham
and Emma Willson.
Volume of communications 35
This report can be found on the
National Audit Office website at
www.nao.org.uk/central-to-local-
gov-2012
For further information about the
National Audit Office please contact:
National Audit Office
Press Office
157–197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
London
SW1W 9SP
Tel: 020 7798 7400
Enquiries: www.nao.org.uk/contactus
Website: www.nao.org.uk
Twitter: @NAOorguk4 Foreword Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Foreword
1 Subject to parliamentary approval, when the Audit Commission closes the
NAO expects to assume the Commission’s role in setting the framework for local
audit through a code of audit practice. In preparation, we are working closely with the
Commission to understand the role fully and the audit work carried out by the auditors
of local public bodies. We are engaging directly with local authorities and auditors
to understand their views on the scope and nature of local audit, to help us take this
work forward.
2 We have said to Parliament that we will expand gradually our programme of
value-for-money examinations to consider local government more explicitly. The
NAO is uniquely placed to evaluate the value for money of public spending, tracking
funding and delivery from national to local level. We plan to expand our programme of
value‑for‑money studies of local services, with three studies in 2012-13, four in 2013-14
and six in 2014-15. The Public Accounts Commission has approved additional resources
for the NAO to cover the cost of this work. We will work closely with bodies, such as
the Local Government Association, to make sure that our programme complements the
sector’s self-improvement work.
3 Our proposal to develop our value-for-money programme was supported by the
Department for Communities and Local Government in its response to the Future of
Local Audit: Consultation (January 2012). The Communities and Local Government
Select Committee, in its report Audit and Inspection of Local Authorities (July 2011),
recommended that our programme should give due weight to local government services
and spending. In our work, we do not intend to replace local accountability by holding
individual local authorities to account. Instead, our focus will be on sector-wide issues
and how they can best be addressed.
4 This first report examines how central government communicates and engages
with local government. Communication is the two-way exchange of information. To be
successful, bodies must develop good relationships and understand their audience. At its
best, good communication supports engagement and collaborative working, leading to
better outcomes. With pressure to reduce spending, it is more important than ever that
central government engages effectively with local government to draw on its expertise
and capability in designing and delivering good quality, efficient public services.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Key facts 5
Key facts
353 £29.7bn 26%
local authorities central government’s real terms reduction in
in England general contribution contribution by 2014-15
to local government in
England in 2010-11
£179 billion total local government expenditure in the UK in 2010-11, including
expenditure funded by specific grants
Over 18,000 councillors in England
744,000 emails sent by central government departments and agencies
to local government in March 2012
1,335 statutory duties on local authorities as at June 2011
308 consultation documents issued by seven departments1 between
2010 and 2012
65 per cent of consultations, from seven departments over two years, asked for
a response in under 60 working days
46,814 subscribers to info4local, central government’s website service for
local authorities
£218,000 cost of info4local in 2011-12
1 Departments for Communities and Local Government, Education, Health, Transport, Work and Pensions,
Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office.6 Summary Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Summary
1 At around £179 billion, total expenditure by local government accounted for around
one quarter of total managed public expenditure in the UK in 2010-11.2 Communication
between central and local government is inherently complex. Local government
comprises a large number of democratically elected bodies of varying sizes, and with
broad responsibilities relating to the people who live and work in their areas. Local
government balances its local priorities with the need to deliver national objectives, set
through Whitehall departments and agencies, which have a more distant relationship
with communities.
2 The government aims to devolve more power to local level with new freedoms
and flexibility for local authorities. Achieving the changes set out in the 2011 Localism
Act and Open Public Services White Paper will require a less directive relationship with
local government. Central government also plans to reduce its general contribution to
local government in England from £29.7 billion in 2010-11 to £24.2 billion in 2014-15,
a reduction of 26 per cent in real terms.3 Making structured cost reductions alongside
fundamental cultural changes will require considerable effort and a strengthened
commitment to joined-up working.
3 Now more than ever, with responsibilities such as public health moving to local
government, the vital role of local authorities in the government’s decentralisation
agenda, and at the same time increased pressures from substantial staff reductions,
it is essential that central government communicates and engages well with local
government. Public policies and the programmes to implement them often require
balancing the aspirations and interests of a wide variety of groups.4 Engagement through
the cycle from policy development to delivery helps to build shared ownership, draw
out practical implications and reduce the risk of waste. A number of our recent reports
have demonstrated the importance of government departments engaging with and
incentivising local authorities. For example:
• insufficient engagement with fire and rescue authorities was one factor that led to a
major project to replace control rooms being cancelled in 2010. The project did not
have the support of the majority of the end-users essential to its success, which
wasted a minimum of £469 million;5 and
2 HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2011 tables, Chapter 7.
3 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, October 2010.
4 National Audit Office, Guide: Initiating successful projects, 1 December 2011.
5 Comptroller and Auditor General, The failure of the FiReControl project, Session 2010–2012, HC 1272,
National Audit Office, 1 July 2011.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Summary 7
• our report on flood risk management6 found that while some good progress had
been made, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needed to
clarify and more effectively communicate the steps required for local authorities
to implement some key measures.
4 This report examines the effectiveness of central government’s communication
and engagement with local government. It is structured around the following features
of effective communication and engagement distilled from our fieldwork in central and
local government:
• Part One covers the conditions that support central and local government in
working together effectively. These conditions include: understanding local
government; developing effective relationships; and joint working and partnership.
• Part Two covers sharing knowledge to develop policies and services that work.
This requires clear articulation and sharing of programmes; early work with local
government to draw on knowledge and expertise; consultation in a timely and
effective way; and effective feedback to give confidence that views and insights
are being heard.
• Part Three covers how high-quality, timely, well targeted, coordinated and
accessible communications support efficient and effective business.
Key findings
5 The organisational differences between central and local government make
communication very challenging, and in messages that flow from the centre it is
central government that bears the responsibility as communicator. Government
departments focus on particular policies, whereas with over 1,300 statutory duties local
government has wider responsibility across policies that affect their communities. The
differences bring significant risks of loss of focus and conflict between national and local
priorities. Timely, effective communications are important in managing these risks and in
using the knowledge of both central and local government to achieve joined-up services
to meet the needs of local people.
6 Our work across government has demonstrated that not consulting delivery
partners early brings a high risk of waste and optimism bias that can result in
programme failure.7 Where departments are designing local services, local authorities’
operational experience is often important to effective design and implementation of
programmes such as the conversion of maintained schools to academies (case study
four, page 21). However, there is no consistent approach across government to drawing
on local authorities’ experience from the start.
6 Comptroller and Auditor General, Flood risk management in England, Session 2010–2012, HC 1521,
National Audit Office, 28 October 2011.
7 National Audit Office, Guide: Initiating Successful Projects, 1 December 2011.8 Summary Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
7 Some policy consultations are rushed – in two-thirds of consultations in
the two years to January 2012, the seven departments included in our analysis
allowed less time than suggested in their own code of practice (60 working days).
Departments issue a disproportionate number of consultations just before parliamentary
recess and the holiday periods of Easter, summer and Christmas. Many local authorities
therefore find it difficult to coordinate their work on these consultations with their own
political and business cycles, and to involve those communities or local organisations
that may be directly affected. Local authorities would also like to see clearer feedback
on how their views and experience have been taken into account.
8 We identified good examples of departments articulating and sharing
programmes for developing a policy (such as in adult social care – case
study one, page 16), but this is not done consistently. Some policies leave local
government and its partners with gaps in the information they need to plan effectively
over the course of a policy’s initiation, development and implementation. There is a
demand for more comprehensive, up-to-date information on major policy proposals and
implementation, including key facts, objectives, timescales and progress. This would
also support wider dialogue with local people and organisations likely to be involved in
or affected by a proposed change.
9 Though the majority of individual communications are good quality,
the large volume of communications between central and local government
means that poor quality communications still have a significant impact – in
March 2012, some 744,000 emails were sent by central government and its
agencies and non‑departmental public bodies to local government. Well-designed
communications such as the newsletters from the Department for Communities and
Local Government and the Department of Health provide very helpful signposting
to local authority officers. However, local authorities are exasperated by the poor
signposting of some communications they receive from central government
departments, which wastes the time of the hundreds of people who receive each
one. Departments’ standards and oversight of communications with local government
are not sufficiently systematic to eliminate the risk of some poor communications
slipping through. This is a particular concern to local authority managers working with
fewer staff following cost reductions, who therefore need to understand and act on
communications more quickly.
10 Local authority staff find departments’ websites generally helpful in their
content and design. However, three of the five departments’ websites we examined
have only limited functionality specifically to help local authorities. The info4local service,
which provides a means of finding relevant information on the websites of departments,
agencies and other public bodies, is widely used by local government and users record
high levels of satisfaction.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Summary 9 11 Engagement between staff in central and local government, and the involvement of representative and professional bodies, is extensive and diverse but is not systematic. There is a range of activities and initiatives by departments that are viewed positively, and which individually help to build better understanding in central government of the political, operational and contextual differences in local government. For example, three departments have formalised relationships between their senior staff and local government, with the connections developed by the Department for Communities and Local Government particularly well received. While such activities help to build knowledge and facilitate how local authorities access the right people and information, the need for them to be developed further to become more systematic is widely acknowledged in both arms of government. 12 Working directly with local government provides insights for departments into how policies and services are joined up at local level. Programmes where staff from central and local government work together, as with the ‘Whole-Place pilots’ (case study two, page 17), are supporting new ways of working and genuine sharing of expertise. As well as having potential to build institutional learning, such initiatives can also show how departments should work better with each other, as well as with local government, to improve design and delivery of local services. Overall conclusion 13 Communication and engagement between local and central government is inherently challenging owing to differences in scale, function, and accountability to elected representatives. It is clear that both sides apply considerable energy and goodwill to the interface, with the Department for Communities and Local Government taking the leading role on decentralisation, and we highlight good practice in this report. 14 However, there are areas where central government could do better: in directing its communications to best fit local government partners; and in fulfilling its commitments on engagement, notably consultation. Resolving these issues will lead to more effective working relationships, and our recommendations have this objective in mind.
10 Summary Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Recommendations
a To build institutional knowledge that is essential to working effectively
with local government, departments must improve the standards, flow and
accessibility of communications. Specifically departments should:
• monitor standards for written communications, so that messages are more
focused with less need for clarification;
• assess the need for changes to the volume and flow of communications with
local government in light of our analysis;
• review, with input from local authorities, how departmental websites can
provide greater utility through features such as the role and contact details
of key staff;
• review the knowledge and attributes staff require to work effectively with
local government, build these into staff development programmes and
departmental processes and identify opportunities for joint learning; and
• mitigate the risk of loss of institutional knowledge, such as that gained through
relationships between senior staff and local government, by systematically
sharing knowledge and experience of local government within and
across departments.
b Departments should fulfil their commitments on engagement and
consultation with local authorities by:
• providing clear, accessible policy intentions, milestones and other important
facts, continuously updated throughout the development and implementation
of major policies;
• engaging early with local authorities, and representative and professional
bodies, as key partners unless there is a good reason not to;
• managing the volume and timing of formal consultations to allow local
government to give a considered response using their experience of joining
up services locally; and
• spelling out clearly how local government’s contribution has, or has not,
altered policy proposals.
c In order to achieve a coherent approach, the Department for Communities
and Local Government should work with other departments to assess
progress in implementing these recommendations across government.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part One 11
Part One
Developing the conditions for central and local
government to work together
1.1 Issues that concern policymakers often emerge from activities and experiences
of local communities, such as in education and crime. Local authority councillors’
and officers’ knowledge and insights from their work with communities are valuable in
exploring effective solutions. By developing a culture to openly share their perspectives,
central and local government both have much to gain from using shared knowledge to
build institutional learning across their organisations.
1.2 A joined-up approach is not a new concept. Our 2001 report Modern policy‑
making: ensuring policies deliver value for money 8 outlined the importance of
understanding problems and assessing how policies may work in practice. This part of
the report examines the following conditions we have identified as necessary for central
and local government to work effectively together:
• understanding the context and how local government operates, including structure,
delivery responsibilities and the political environment;
• developing mutually informative relationships between central and local
government staff that support continuity by sharing knowledge across and
between organisations;
• engaging in joint working and partnership both through representative groups and
directly with authorities; and
• evolving a strategy to achieve institutional learning across all of government.
How well central government understands local government
1.3 A strong theme from local authorities was that many staff in government
departments do not understand local government priorities, structures and business well.
At the same time, many recognised that they too needed to understand the pressures
on civil servants, for people in central and local government to work better together.
For example, civil servants have a duty to carry out the business of the minister. In
contrast, local authority officers have a statutory duty to provide open and frank advice
to the whole council, across all political parties. A message from central government in
the style of ‘command and control’ can overlook the multifaceted nature of local politics
and the democratic imperative to give due weight to local political priorities.
8 Comptroller and Auditor General, Modern policy-making: ensuring policies deliver value for money,
Session 2001‑02, HC 289, National Audit Office, 1 November 2001.12 Part One Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
1.4 There are five types of local authority (Figure 1). The 353 local authorities in
England vary widely, some serving populations in thousands, others in millions. Staff
numbers range from a small district with 90 employees to a large county council
with more than 12,000. This affects the ability of councils to work with and respond
to central government. Civil servants cannot take account of every difference. Even
so, communications which imply that local implementation can be ‘one-size-fits-all’,
based on the unitary council model, can make implementation more difficult where
local authorities have to reinterpret policy to fit their local context and structure. Local
authority officers also felt that in two-tier areas that have a county council and district
councils, departmental officials often assume that there is a hierarchical relationship in
which the county has lead responsibility. In fact counties and districts have distinct roles
and operate as separate, democratically elected bodies.
Figure 1
Types and numbers of authorities
There are five types of local authority which vary widely in population, size and cost of services
Type of authority Number of Examples
authorities
Two tier
County council 27 Nottinghamshire
County in a two-tier system with seven districts (City of
Nottingham is a unitary authority). Population 777,000.
Gross cost of county services in 2010-11 approximately
£1,226 million.
District council 201 South Lakeland
Rural district in two-tier system within the county of Cumbria.
Population 104,000. Gross cost of services in 2010-11
approximately £99 million.
Single tier
Metropolitan 36 Stockport
In the Greater Manchester area. Population 284,000. Gross
cost of services in 2010-11 approximately £719 million.
London borough 33 London Borough of Brent
In outer London, with strategic administration also provided
by the Greater London Authority. High population density:
288,100 in area of 43 km2. Gross cost of services in 2010-11
approximately £1,231 million.
Unitary (including the 56 Cornwall
Isles of Scilly) Formerly comprised county, district and borough councils.
Population 535,300. With 19,140 staff, is the largest employer
in the county. Gross cost of services in 2010-11 £1,381 million.
Source: National Audit Office analysisCentral government’s communication and engagement with local government Part One 13
1.5 The roles of councils differ. Single tier authorities (unitary authorities, London
boroughs and metropolitan councils) typically provide the majority of local services.
In areas with two tiers of local government, responsibilities such as planning, waste
collection and disposal and highways may be carried out either by the county or district
council. Not all areas provide services in the same way. For example, central government
communications on education policy do not always recognise that different issues arise
because some areas have primary and secondary schools while others also have middle
schools. Some authorities have also received communications about services for which
they do not have statutory responsibility. For example, the Department for Transport
has sent correspondence about road traffic signs to district councils which are not
responsible for highways. District councils can become aware of communications that
apply to them but have only been sent to the county council, thus delaying the start of
any action they might need to take.
Developing effective relationships and contacts
1.6 Local authorities are bound by statute. The Department for Communities and
Local Government estimates that in 2011 there were more than 1,300 statutory duties
placed on local authorities. Of these, more than 75 per cent were sponsored by
five departments (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Departmental sponsors of local authority duties
In 2011, more than 75 per cent of statutory duties placed on local authorities were sponsored by
five government departments
Department Count of separate local
authority duties
Transport 299
Communities and Local Government 217
Education 201
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 189
Health 105
Other departments 324
Total 1,335
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, review of statutory duties placed on local government,
June 2011.14 Part One Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
1.7 So many duties for local authorities working across diverse communities make it
a challenge to develop effective relationships and contacts between central and local
government. However, achieving any reduction in volume is difficult. In the course of a
cross-government review of statutory duties placed on local authorities in 2011,9 among
21,000 comments on whether duties could be removed 90 per cent supported keeping
specific duties, while just 10 per cent suggested duties that could be considered
for removal.
1.8 Local authority officers value direct contact with departmental staff, and
particularly appreciate those who clearly understand the local government context.
Local councillors and politicians in Westminster – both MPs and ministers – also have
established relationships and direct contacts that are seen as helpful and a good source
of knowledge for both parts of government. However, most departments do not routinely
publish the roles and contact details of key staff.
1.9 The need for direct contact between central and local government was partly met
by the now closed regional government offices. Recognising the benefits for central
and local government from building direct contacts, the Department for Communities
and Local Government has given over 70 of its senior officials responsibilities as
‘locality leads’ across 14 regions. Each region has a lead director, supported by deputy
directors. In addition to their policy responsibilities, these officials have a role to become
familiar with issues facing authorities in their area by visiting and keeping in touch. They
act as a two-way conduit to share information and good practice, and facilitate access
to the right people, including in other government departments.
1.10 The Department piloted and launched these arrangements in June 2011 and
estimates that its ‘locality leads’ spend between 5 and 10 per cent of their time carrying
out this role. While local authorities recognised that these relationships are still developing,
they appreciated the access they afforded to knowledge about policy developments with
implications for local government. Several chief executives we surveyed volunteered the
locality lead arrangements as an example of good practice and the arrangements were
frequently mentioned positively during our local authority visits.
1.11 While the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was not one of the five
Departments we examined,10 local authorities cited its six regional teams as helpful.
Their role includes: helping local government understand the Department’s national
priorities; coordinating economic development; and helping partnerships build capacity
and capability. The Department for Transport has similarly established three local
engagement teams covering the south, midlands/south-west and north of England.
Although the smaller presence from Transport was less well known, it was welcomed
by those who were aware of it.
9 Communities and Local Government, Summary of the review of statutory duties placed on local government,
June 2011. The list of statutory duties notes that the “list is by no means exhaustive and should not be taken as
setting out all of the legal responsibilities of local government”.
10 We focused on five departments with high levels of interaction with local government: Communities and Local
Government, Work and Pensions, Health, Transport and Education.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part One 15 1.12 Local authority staff also cited direct contacts with staff in departments made in the course of their work, which were helpful and constructive. They identified particular individuals in departments who have a strong personal commitment to good engagement face-to-face. For example, despite its small size, the HM Treasury expenditure team had made connections and developed relationships through the Local Government Association, regional events, and contact with particular authorities. The Treasury team views these connections as important, given that most policymaking involves the Treasury from the start, and local authorities are well placed to advise on how policies may eventually be implemented. Joint working and partnership 1.13 There are several local government representative and professional bodies. Many act as a conduit for communication with central government on different issues because they can concentrate expertise and present a consolidated view. One of the factors that local authorities consider in deciding whether to respond directly to a government consultation is whether views would be represented adequately by, for example, the Local Government Association. 1.14 Professional bodies, such as the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, combine expertise and good practice with local experience of what works. Case study one overleaf shows how departments, by working closely with representative and professional bodies, can help ensure that policy and guidance reflects the knowledge of practitioners on the ground and supports their work. Professional associations can also provide interpretation of local authority insights on complex issues, as with, for example, the Association of Local Authority Treasurers in connection with the Local Government Resource Review (case study five, page 22). 1.15 There are also geographical groupings, typically based around a region or Greater London, which give departments forums to discuss how national issues, such as unemployment, are affecting a particular region. Local enterprise partnerships are led by local authorities and businesses across natural economic areas. The partnerships aim to give strategic leadership to drive growth and create jobs. While relatively new, they were mentioned by some local authority officers and recognised as potential vehicles for joint working or communications between central and local government. 1.16 Health and well-being boards, to be established in all areas of England from April 2013, were cited in several local authorities we visited as a good example of timely joint working with local government. The boards are planned as forums for local commissioners across the NHS, public health and social care, elected representatives, and representatives of HealthWatch. The Department of Health is working closely with authorities and representative bodies, such as the Local Government Association, Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, to support the establishment of boards that meet the needs of their local areas.
16 Part One Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Case study one
Think Local, Act Personal, Department of Health
Our report Oversight of user choice and provider competition in care markets (September 2011) showed
that much remains to be done to provide care for an aging population. However, there have been important
achievements. For example, we reported that most of the 340,000 people using a personal budget had
reported improved well-being although a small minority felt worse off.
Think Local, Act Personal is the partnership that underpins local authorities’ work with health and third
sector organisations to improve how adult social care is provided. It comprises over 30 national and
umbrella organisations involved in adult social care. The partnership took over from the Putting People
First programme, which began in December 2007, ended on 31 March 2011 and introduced the system of
personal budgets for people eligible for publicly funded adult social care. The programme was foreshadowed
in the Green Paper Independence, well‑being and choice (2005) and White Paper Our health, our care, our
say: a new direction for community services (2006).
Local authority officers working in this field positively cited Putting People First and subsequent publications
and guidance as providing a ‘golden thread’ that has sustained understanding between the organisations
involved over time, including the more recent change to the Think Local, Act Personal partnership. Putting
People First was formed out of an agreement by six government departments, the Local Government
Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the NHS, representatives of independent
sector providers, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and other partners in December 2007. The
agreement was just five pages long, well written and concise.
The programme has also been supported with tools, such as guidance and milestones to track local
authorities’ progress, created jointly by the Putting People First consortium comprising the Association
of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association and the Department of Health.
Co-producing materials has helped ensure that they are meaningful to people working in local authorities
and other organisations that commission and deliver services.
1.17 In September 2011, the Department of Health, with the Local Government
Association and the early health and well-being boards, set up a National Learning
Network to share knowledge on how the boards can improve health outcomes and be
accountable to local communities. Of the relevant 152 authorities, over 140 have joined
the Network and most have established their shadow boards.
Joined-up approach to institutional learning across all
of government
1.18 The departments we examined provide limited routine training for their staff on
local government. Externally provided courses are available but there are no records
of departments’ use of such training. The Department for Communities and Local
Government used to run a course for all new staff, and is developing a new course,
having identified that staff need to understand local government better.
1.19 Local authority officers spoke of the most effective relationships as involving at
least one person with direct experience of working in both central and local government.
Individuals move between the two sectors, and departments sometimes move people
to and from local authorities as a planned secondment. However, departments do
not manage this movement of staff systematically against a strategy to improve
understanding of, and engagement with, local government.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part One 17 1.20 High staff turnover and movement of staff are inevitable when departments make organisational changes in response to new policies and spending reductions. We have previously recommended that central government should actively monitor the effect of early departures on the civil service’s skills and experience profile, to identify any erosion of capability,11 because knowledge gained through relationships, contacts and joint working is easily lost when key people move on. The effect can be considerable for local authority officers, who have to invest time in developing new relationships and repeatedly explaining important features of their locality. 1.21 The departments we examined do not systematically capture and share knowledge of local government across and between departments. Government officials and local government officers recognise that joining up services to best meet the needs of a local population is difficult because of the focus of departments on their principal policies and funding streams. Managing this challenge would benefit from a more planned approach to achieving institutional learning across government. This has the potential to improve design and delivery of local services. Case study two (Community Budgets) outlines an example of how central and local government staff are working with other partners to explore how resources can be used cost-effectively across local services, and plan to disseminate the joint lessons to other parts of government. Case study two Whole-Place Community Budgets, Department for Communities and Local Government Whole-Place aims to explore how funding of local public services can be brought together to better support the redesign and implementation of local public services, eliminating duplication and filling gaps in provision. It seeks to apply resources more cost-effectively across services, according to local priorities. Four areas are piloting Whole-Place Community Budgets: Greater Manchester; Cheshire West and Chester; Essex; and a partnership of three London Boroughs. Areas have selected their own focus, including offender management, health and social care for older people, increasing economic growth and skills for young people. The pilot programmes are running from March to October 2012. Each involves a team of local authority and local delivery body staff, the Local Government Association and currently 30 civil servants seconded from nine Whitehall departments. The Department for Communities and Local Government and local leaders plan to consider conclusions from the pilots in the autumn. The approach pools expertise from government departments – including Communities and Local Government, Work and Pensions, Health, Home Office, Justice, Education, Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury – with understanding of communities’ needs and the barriers to effective implementation. In asking areas to set their own focus, the approach aims to apply the combined expertise to genuinely local priorities, rather than issues chosen in Whitehall. 11 Comptroller and Auditor General, Managing early departures in central government, Session 2010–2012, HC 1795, National Audit Office, 15 March 2012.
18 Part Two Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Part Two
Sharing knowledge to develop effective
policies and services
2.1 Government departments are more likely to develop effective policies where they
engage with people in local authorities who have experience of commissioning and
delivering services. Given the numbers of local authorities, they cannot all be directly
involved. However, that central government is seen to make all reasonable efforts to
consult properly with local government is a major issue of trust, which can make or
break the relationship between the two.
2.2 This part of the report looks at central government’s arrangements for drawing
on the experience and knowledge of local government, and is structured around the
following key features of effective engagement:
• having a clearly articulated programme and timescale, allowing local authorities
to plan and participate;
• early application of local government’s expertise through representative bodies
or specially convened groups and contact;
• having clear and comprehensive consultations, with enough time for authorities
to respond; and
• feedback on the rationale for decisions.
Articulating and sharing the programme
2.3 Local authorities and other partners can contribute their expertise and commitment
more effectively when central government has clearly stated its policy intentions and
how it plans to achieve them.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part Two 19 2.4 Think Local, Act Personal was cited as a policy area that has been transparent and shared since its origins in 2005 (case study one, page 16). Local authorities also highlighted examples of policies that they felt needed to be clearer. The most often cited example was the prospective change to Council Tax Benefit in April 2013 outlined in case study three. Practical issues that were considered to require greater clarity included coherence between Council Tax Benefit and Universal Credit, time to effect changes to IT and business process, and managing the overall impact on existing benefit recipients. The Localism Act was also frequently indicated as a policy that would benefit from more dialogue between central and local government. Improved discussion on the interpretation of the Act would allow local authorities to explain its implications to communities more clearly. In its June 2011 report,12 the Communities and Local Government Select Committee pointed to inconsistency in how localism is defined and can therefore be interpreted differently by government departments. Case study three Welfare reforms, Departments for Work and Pensions and Communities and Local Government The Departments for Work and Pensions and Communities and Local Government are introducing a series of welfare reforms in 2013, announced in the 2010 spending review. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are means-tested benefits. Housing Benefit has 4.98 million recipients and 5.9 million receive Council Tax Benefit. Housing costs will be paid within Universal Credit from October 2013 while council tax support funding is to be routed through the Department for Communities and Local Government from April 2013, as part of local authority funding in England, but reduced by 10 per cent. Within the Universal Credit programme local authorities are represented, including on the Programme Board and on secondment to the Department for Work and Pensions. On 2 August 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government began a consultation on proposals to transfer responsibility for council tax support to local authorities. In December 2011, the government published its response and introduced the Local Government Finance Bill, which includes provision for this change. Under the new arrangements, local authorities have discretion to design their own schemes to administer council tax support. However, central government has directed that low-income pensioners will be protected from any reductions in support. Local authorities we visited during January and February 2012 emphasised that there needed to be more effective coordination between the two departments to understand the impact and practicalities of this change. Their concerns included: their need for information from the Department for Work and Pensions to continue to ensure coherence with Universal Credit and to support local means testing; and insufficient time allowed for essential IT and business process change and integration for both council tax support and other welfare reforms. They told us that it would be difficult to manage the 10 per cent grant reduction where central government expects and mandates protection for large numbers of people, leaving it to be applied to other groups such as those in low paid employment. 12 Communities and Local Government Committee, Localism, Third Report of Session 2010-12, HC 547, June 2011.
20 Part Two Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
2.5 Local authority officers considered there would be major mutual benefits if
departments adopted a clearer, more visible programme management approach to
major policy development. Having key information on a policy updated regularly and
easily accessible in one place, such as a website, was proposed as a particularly
important element of such an approach. Types of information could include:
• policy aims, objectives and intended outcomes;
• key documents, such as policy papers, plans, consultation and responses,
and registers of risks and opportunities;
• interdependencies with other policies and programmes;
• timelines and milestones, and progress updates;
• key contacts for departments and stakeholders; and
• opportunities to discuss and share practice.
2.6 By providing an up-to-date snapshot of a developing policy, such a vehicle
would maximise shared knowledge and minimise the need for ad hoc enquiries about
progress. It would also prompt local authority officers to consider how a policy would
affect their community and be ready to respond, whether by providing further insights
to the lead department or preparing for implementation. It could provide a convenient
source of material for local authorities to share with local people and organisations,
including the private sector. For departments, it would have added potential use in
developing a joined-up approach with other government departments.
Early use of local government’s knowledge and expertise
2.7 Early engagement with local government allows departments to understand
operational constraints, challenges and opportunities, and potential impacts on, for
example, rural areas and demographic groups, such as the elderly. Many local authority
officers consider that departments should tap earlier into local government expertise,
before formal consultation. The Department for Education took this approach before
consulting on a revised version of Working together to safeguard children and the
Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families.13 Officials worked
on the draft document with a professional advisory group, including representatives from
local authorities. In addition, eight local authorities are testing a more flexible approach
to assessment, and are helping departmental officials to revise the draft to reflect the
practicalities of implementing the changes.
13 Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and Home Office, Framework for the
assessment of children in need and their families, June 2000.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part Two 21 2.8 Case study four illustrates how the Department for Education could also have benefited from drawing more on local authority expertise in the early months of expanding the academies programme. Officials working on the programme are now making greater use of local knowledge, and the Department has a joint research project with the Local Government Association into the role of local authorities in the changed framework for schools. 2.9 Most departments discuss policies with representative or professional local government groups, generally through consultative panels or groups set up to examine a specific policy. The Department for Work and Pensions set up such a group in preparing its new fraud and error strategy, which was published on 18 October 2010. There was, however, limited consultation with local authorities, for example, to discuss the impact on local authority benefit fraud investigators of creating a single fraud investigation service. The Department is now working with local authorities and other government departments to examine options to involve local authority investigation teams in the single fraud investigation service. Case study four Academies, Department for Education Academies are state schools that are independent of local authorities, and directly accountable to the Department for Education. Since May 2010, any maintained primary, secondary, or special school can seek academy status. In March 2012, there were 1,635 academies, and many more schools had applied. Our September 2010 report on the academies programme1 concluded that many academies were performing impressively in delivering the programme’s intended impacts. Many earlier academies had shown significant and sustained improvement. We also concluded that expansion would increase the scale of risks to value for money, particularly in the areas of financial sustainability, governance and management capacity. Depending on a school’s circumstances, converting to academy status can be complicated by legal and other complexities, such as leasing arrangements for land and buildings. Local authorities told us that early on in the programme for academy conversions the Department for Education had not routinely asked for their assistance with the conversion process, for example, for advice on an individual school’s circumstances that the local authority would generally be aware of. This had sometimes led to unexpected issues that could have been addressed sooner had the local authority been involved earlier. Local authority officers felt that staff at the Department for Education were becoming more aware and appreciative of how early engagement with local authorities can support the conversion process. The Department and the Local Government Association are at present conducting joint research into the role of local authorities in education and plan to publish a report in June 2012. Nine local authorities are participating in the research, some with a high proportion of recently converted academies, some with a mix of academies and maintained schools, and some with a high proportion of community and faith schools. An interim report was published on 28 February 2012. NOTE 1 Comptroller and Auditor General, Department for Education: The Academies Programme, Session 2010-11, HC 288, National Audit Office, 10 September 2010.
22 Part Two Central government’s communication and engagement with local government
Effective consultation providing sufficient time to engage
2.10 It can be hard for departments to get consultations right. Case study five outlines
features of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation
the Local Government Resource Review.14 Reactions to this consultation were mixed.
Some finance professionals we spoke to praised the clarity of the consultation paper
and welcomed the detail of supporting technical papers. They knew in advance what
to expect, senior officials from the Department were available for discussions, and the
Department provided support through professional networks. Others criticised the
volume of material and suggested a lack, even so, of detail on practical impacts of
the changes, and the short timescale for a consultation on such a complex subject.
Case study five
Local Government Resource Review: Business Rates Retention,
Department for Communities and Local Government
Local authorities collect business rates from businesses in their area and pay them into a central pool to be
redistributed as part of the Department’s Formula Grant. The grant is extremely complex. In November 2011,
the Committee of Public Accounts concluded that, “Multiple objectives for funding models have increased
their complexity and reduced transparency. Particularly with the Department for Communities and Local
Government’s Formula Grant, it is virtually impossible to follow the link between calculated needs and
funding allocations.”
On 18 July 2011, the Department published the consultation on a rates-retention scheme to replace the
current local government finance system, accompanied by a plain English guide. It included proposals
to make councils more financially independent and provide an incentive to promote business growth by
allowing them to keep a share of business rates growth in their area.
A month later, on 19 August, the Department published eight technical papers on how the proposals would
affect local authorities. Taken together, the consultation and technical papers were 264 pages long and
raised 33 questions about the proposed scheme. The closing date was 24 October 2011, giving 71 working
days to respond, but only 47 working days from the time the technical papers were issued. The Secretary
of State announced his response to the consultation on 19 December, accompanied by a plain English
guide and separate summary of the responses to the consultation. The summary of responses noted that,
“Many respondents in particular focused their responses on the main consultation document, rather than
the detailed technical papers.”
Scope and clarity of consultations
2.11 A government consultation typically seeks comments and evidence on specific
policy questions. Local authority officers appreciate the clarity of this approach, though
it can mean that wider issues, which are important for local government, do not fit with
the questions posed. For example, 100 of the 461 responses on proposals for business
rates retention15 did not specifically respond to any of the 33 questions, providing
comments which had to be analysed separately. The comments included fundamental
issues about the application of the proposals to bodies other than local authorities;
queries about the baseline, growth incentive and protections; and concerns about
14 Communities and Local Government, Local Government Resource Review: Proposals for Business Rates
Retention – Consultation, 18 July 2011.
15 Communities and Local Government, Local Government Resource Review Proposals for Business Rates
Retention – Consultation: Summary of responses, 19 December 2011.Central government’s communication and engagement with local government Part Two 23
timetabling and complexity. HM Treasury’s call for evidence on private finance initiative
reform was cited as a consultation that covered wider issues that local authorities would
wish to comment on and welcomed suggestions on different financial models.
2.12 In deciding whether to respond, local authorities consider a consultation’s likely
impact locally and on resources. Officers seek to fully understand the issues, so
that they can present them clearly to council and, where necessary, discuss them
with local people and organisations. Local authorities can find it difficult to respond
to a consultation on policy principles where they need to know more about how a
change might be implemented. Officers particularly appreciate when departments
hold workshops to discuss policies in more detail. Departments did this, for example,
on Community Budgets and the Local Government Resource Review.
Timeliness of consultations
2.13 Local authorities are keen to participate in consultations, but peaks of consultations
and short deadlines make it difficult for them to provide complete and meaningful
responses. This is a particular problem where consultations are complex, or interrelated
so that the same officers must respond on a similar timescale. Officers also need to plan
for consultation to fit within the council’s business cycle, and hold discussions at pre-
scheduled committee meetings.
2.14 Many local authority officers considered that the timing, complexity and length
of consultations had caused problems in handling the work required to respond
properly. The government’s code of practice on consultation16 is clear on the time that
departments should allow:
• Consultations should “…normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given
to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.”
• Furthermore “If a consultation exercise is to take place over a period when
consultees are less able to respond, e.g. over the summer or Christmas break, or
if the policy under consideration is particularly complex, consideration should be
given to the feasibility of allowing a longer period for the consultation.”
• The code provides for the following limited flexibility: “Where a formal consultation
exercise is considered appropriate and there are good reasons for it to last for a
shorter period, the consultation document should be clear as to the reasons for the
shortened consultation period and ministerial clearance for the shorter time frame
should be sought.”
16 Better Regulation Executive, Code of practice on consultation, July 2008.You can also read
